Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hello there,

This is probably very easy but I can't find an argument.

Call a function $f: R^n \to R$ monotone increasing if $x_i \le y_i$ for each $1 \le i \le n$ implies $f(x) \le f(y)$.

I'd like to show that such a function is measurable; I'd be very surprised if this is not the case.

If $n=1$ it's ok, for the set $f^{-1}(-\infty,c)$ is either empty or an interval. I thought about studying each section of $f$, that is, fix e.g. $\hat{x}_1=(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$, then $f_{\hat{x}_1}(x) := f(x,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$ is monotone, hence measurable. Similarly any section is measurable. But it seems this is not sufficient to conclude...


share|improve this question
I think this appears as an exercise in Geoffrey Grimmett's Probability on Graphs. –  Nate Eldredge Jun 21 '13 at 0:31

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

We use induction on $n$. For $n=1$ this is trivial. Otherwise, suppose $f : \mathbb{R}^{n+1} \to \mathbb{R}$ is monotone increasing, fix $a \in \mathbb{R}$, and define $g : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ by $g(x) = \inf\{t \in \mathbb{R} : f(x,t) \ge a\}$. Then $g$ is monotone decreasing. By the induction hypothesis, $g$ is Lebesgue measurable. So the epigraph $E = \{(x,t) : t > g(x)\}$ is Lebesgue measurable, and the graph $G = \{(x,t) : g(x) = t\}$ is Lebesgue null (Fubini's theorem). However, $E \triangle\ \{f \ge a\} \subset G$ so $\{f \ge a\}$ is Lebesgue measurable.

share|improve this answer
Thanks very much. –  lonewolf Jun 21 '13 at 14:41

This does not work for Borel measurability even in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. To see this, let $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, and let $R_{A}\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ be the set $\{(x,y)|-x<y\}\cup\{(x,-x)|x\in A\}$.` Then $R_{A}$ is an upward-closed subset of $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. Let $f_{A}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be the function where $f_{A}(z)=1$ whenever $z\in R_{A}$ and $f_{A}(z)=0$ otherwise. Then $f_{A}$ is monotone increasing, but $f_{A}$ is Borel measurable if and only if $A$ is a Borel subset of $\mathbb{R}$. I suspect that every monotone map $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is Lebesgue measurable in the $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure, but I do not yet have a proof (I will get back to you if I find a proof). And Nate Eldredge beat me to the proof for the Lebesgue measurable case.

share|improve this answer
Thanks, your example is interesting too and complements the story. I tried to accept both answers but it doesn't work. Thanks anyway :) Small typo: you meant $z \in R_A$. –  lonewolf Jun 21 '13 at 10:35

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.